Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED453246: Revisiting Reading Rate as a Diagnostic Tool for Reading Difficulties."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 



ED 453 246 



TM 032 783 



AUTHOR 

TITLE 

PUB DATE 
NOTE 



PUB TYPE 
EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 

IDENTIFIERS 



Rasinski, Timothy 

Revisiting Reading Rate as a Diagnostic Tool for Reading 
Difficulties . 

2001-04-12 

1 7p . ; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American 
Educational Research Association (Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 
2001 ) . 

Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) 

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. 

Elementary Education; *Measurement Techniques; Reading 

Comprehension; *Reading Rate 

Accuracy 



ABSTRACT 



Conventional wisdom has suggested that the rate at which a 
reader processes text matters little as long as the reader can read with 
accuracy and comprehension. This paper makes the case that reading rate is an 
essential component of proficient reading, and is significantly correlated 
with other measures of proficient reading, such as standardized and informal 
measures of comprehension and word recognition accuracy. If, however, reading 

rate is to be used as a method for assessing reading progress and problems, 

certain tasks must be carried out. These include the identification of valid 

standards for reading rate as well as the conditions under which reading rate 

should be measured. In theory, reading rate is a measure of the underlying 
concept of reading fluency. Authentic interventions such as the use of 
repeated readings prior to the performance of poetry or reader's theater have 
been shown to lead to improved fluency, improved rate of reading, and 
improved overall performance in reading. (Contains 4 tables and 11 
references.) ( SLD) 



Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made 
from the original document. 



TM032783 ED 453 246 



Revisiting Reading Rate as a 
Diagnostic Tool for Reading Difficulties 



Timothy Rasinski 



PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND 
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS 
BEEN GRANTED BY 

i • try S 



U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement 
DUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 
/ CENTER (ERIC) 

k/fhis document has been reproduced as 
received from the person or organization 
originating it. 

I Minor changes have been made to 



TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 



• Points of view or opinions stated in this 
document do not necessarily represent 
official OERI position or policy. 



This paper is prepared for the: 

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Seattle, WA 

April 2001 




2 



BEST COPY AVAILABLE 



Revisiting Reading Rate as a Diagnostic Tool for Reading Difficulties 

Timothy Rasinski 
Kent State University 
330-672-0649 
trasinsk@kent.edu 

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 

April 12, 2001, Seattle, Washington 

Abstract 

For years reading rate has occupied a secondary role, at best, in most practitioners’ 
concept of reading and reading assessment and diagnosis. Conventional wisdom has suggested 
that the rate at which a reader processes text matters little as long as the reader read with 
accuracy and, more importantly, with comprehension. In this paper I argue that reading rate is a 
essential component of proficient reading and is significantly correlated with other measures of 
proficient reading such as standardized and informal measures of comprehension and word 
recognition accuracy. Moreover, recent analyses of students identified with significant reading 
difficulties and referred for an in-depth diagnosis in reading reveal almost universal difficulties in 
reading rate or reading efficiency. 

Reading rate, then, can and should be considered as a reasonable and effective method for 
assessment of reading progress and, more importantly, diagnosis of reading problems. If reading 
rate is to be used for this purpose, however, I argue that certain tasks need to be carried out. 

These include the identification of valid standards for reading rate as well as the conditions under 
which reading rate should be measured. 

Finally, I conclude that although reading rate can be a valuable and effective tool in the 
diagnostic and assessment process, it is not the only tool available, nor should it be the only 
assessment and diagnostic tool that a teacher or diagnostician use. Moreover, the identification 
of difficulties in reading rate does not suggest simple-minded exercises or other interventions for 
building reading rate. Theoretically, rate is a measure of the underlying concept of reading 
fluency. Authentic interventions such as the use of repeated readings prior to the performance of 
poetry or reader’s theatre have been shown to lead to improved fluency, improved rate of reading, 
and improved overall performance in reading. 




3 



For years reading rate has occupied a secondary role, at best, in most practitioners’ 
concept of reading and reading assessment and diagnosis. Conventional wisdom has suggested 
that the rate at which a reader processes text matters little as long as the reader read with 
accuracy and, more importantly, with comprehension. For example, just this past semester I had 
graduate students in my “Diagnosis of Reading Problems” course examine reading data profiles 
of a variety of students. Those readers with poor reading rates and acceptable comprehension 
were viewed by most graduate students, who were themselves practicing teachers, as normal 
readers who required little in the way of extra attention or intervention. When the poor reading 
rate was accompanied by inadequate comprehension, most students saw a problem. However, 
the answer to the problem was to help such readers develop comprehension strategies and skills 
to make sense of the text. Few students saw a connection between slow and inefficient 
processing of the text and poor comprehension. 

Despite this ambivalent orientation toward reading rate held by many practitioners, some 
recent studies have indicated that measure of reading rate are indeed associated with 
comprehension and general proficiency in reading. The work of Ronald Carver in the 1980s has 
helped make the theoretical and empirical connection between rate and comprehension. More 
recently, Gay Su Pinnell and her associates (1995), using data from the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress, found that reading rate, used as a measure of reading fluency, was 
substantively associated with the silent reading comprehension of fourth grade students. In the 
study, fluency was closely associated with comprehension, yet there was little difference in word 
recognition accuracy among the four identified levels of fluency and comprehension. Reading 
rate between the most and least fluent readers (as well as the students with the best and worst 
comprehension) differed by nearly a factor of three. The most fluent (and best comprehenders) 
read at a rate of 162 words per minute, while those who struggle most in fluency and 
comprehension read at 65 words per minute. 

Moreover, a pragmatic analysis of reading rate in authentic classroom reading situations 
also hints at the importance of reading rate. Students reading at a rate that is nearly one-third the 
rate of their classmates would find it difficult to keep up with their classmates on reading 
assignments, especially those that required some measure of accountability after a predetermined 




1 



time for reading, a time period that would most likely not be adequate for those least fluent and 
least efficient of readers. 

With this emerging recognition of the possible role of reading fluency in assessing and 
diagnosing possible reading difficulties, I decided to examine the current state of practical 
(school oriented) knowledge of reading rate, particularly on its usefulness as a diagnostic and 
assessment tool. More precisely, I asked the question, is there other evidence that reading rate is 
associated with more classroom oriented measures of reading achievement and comprehension? 
The answer is a definite yes. 

In a study of third and fifth-grade students, Rasinski (1999) reported significant Pearson 
product-moment correlations of .67 and .57 between reading rate and word recognition accuracy 
for grades three and five respectively. Knowing that instructional reading level is partially 
defined by a 95% word recognition accuracy level on passage reading, Rasinski suggested that 
instructional reading rates could be determined by creating prediction equations per grade level 
which would yield targeted reading rates based upon levels of word recognition accuracy. 

Rasinski (1990) also reported significant associations between oral reading rate and 
several measures of general reading proficiency and comprehension. For third grade students 
Rasinski found significant correlations of .37, .45, and .79 between reading rate and retelling, 
multiple choice comprehension, and the comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading 
Test respectively. For fifth-graders, Rasinski reported significant correlations of .38, .53, and .75 
between reading rate and measures of retelling, multiple-choice comprehension, and the 
comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. 

Most recently, I had, this past December, the opportunity to take oral reading samples of 
two second grade classrooms that made up the entire grade two cohort of a local elementary 
school. I took one minute reading probes from each child on a second-grade level passage and a 
third-grade passage. From these probes I was able to measures of reading rate, in words read 
correctly per minute (WCPM), as well as percentage of word recognition accuracy. I also had 
students read word lists at second and third-grade levels, a word list of high frequency words 
appropriate to the primary grades, and Cunningham and Cunningham’s Names Test, a test of 

2 




5 



decoding words in isolation in which the words represent a wide range of phonics elements 
students are expected to master in the elementary grades. I also asked the two highly experienced 
teachers (one of whom had her doctorate in reading education) to rate each student’s overall level 
of reading proficiency based on her observations of each child’s reading in authentic classroom 
reading situations over the first four months of school. All measures of reading correlated 
positively with the teachers’ estimation of student proficiency (see Table 1). However, the 
measures of reading rate appear to be among the most powerful and significant predictors of 
student achievement as measured by teacher estimation. The correlations between reading rate 
and teacher estimation was .79 and .82 for the second and third grade passages respectively. On 
the grade two passage, the mean reading rate was 88 WCPM, with a standard deviation of 30. 

To summarize at this point, then, regardless of the of measure of student overall 
proficiency used, reading rate, an easily obtained measure of reading fluency, appears to correlate 
significantly with every measure. Thus, used in a classroom or clinical setting, measures of 
reading rate may provide teachers with another tool for identifying those children who may be 
experiencing difficulties in learning to read. 



Inert Tables 1 and 2 Here 



Next, taking this approach to the a clinical setting, I examined the record of every student 
in the past two years who was referred to our university reading clinic for reading problems and 
for whom measures of reading rate (WCPM) at or one level below grade placement were 
available. Because not all children were able or asked to read such passages, not all students 
referred to our clinic were included in this examination. Every one of the students in this 
examination read at a rate that is below the 50%ile reading rate for their assigned grade level as 
identified by Hasbrouck and Tindal (1992) (see Table 2). On average, the 13 students for whom 
such a comparison with grade level reading rates on grade level passages was possible read at a 
rate that was 48.9% of the 50th %ile reading rate for their grade level. In addition three second 
graders were not asked to read a second-grade passage. However, their reading rate on a passage 

3 




6 



below their grade placement was less than half the 50th %ile target rate for their grade level. 
Half of the 16 students we provided diagnostic services to in grades two through four were 
reading at a rate that was significantly less than half of what could be considered the normal rate 
for students at their grade level. Think of the frustration these children must experience as any 
reading assignment given them at their grade level requires more than twice the amount of time 
to accomplish as the more normal achieving student. At a very pragmatic level, then, examining 
reading rate can provide reading diagnosticians with a picture of the reading challenge faced by 
struggling readers everyday in their classrooms. At our university reading clinic we now 
routinely measure readers’ rate of reading and include that data as part of the diagnostic process. 

The connection between reading rate or efficiency and comprehension and general 
reading proficiency, however, also has a theoretical basis — one being LaBerge and Samuels’ 
(1974) theory of automaticity in reading. According to LaBerge and Samuels, readers have a 
limited amount of cognitive attention or capacity available to them. That cognitive capacity can 
be directed to the surface level task of decoding or to the deeper level task of comprehension. 
Attention that is devoted to word recognition cannot be applied to comprehension. Thus, it is in 
the readers’ best interest to devote maximum cognitive capacity to comprehension and minimal 
cognitive attention to word recognition. As readers develop their word recognition to a point of 
automaticity, their sight vocabulary increases, their sensitivity to textual phrasing increases, and 
these are both reflected in improvements in reading rate. As reading rate improves within 
acceptable boundaries, more cognitive capacity is then freed for comprehension processing, and 
comprehension should improve. Thus, examinations of reading rate should provide reading 
specialists, diagnosticians, and teachers with one more tool for determining the extent to which 
readers have developed mastery and automaticity over the surface level aspects of reading in 
order to devote their maximum efforts to making sense of what they have read. 

If we accept the premise the reading rate does present reading specialists, diagnosticians, 
classroom teachers, and others with one more valid tool for assessing reading performance, 
certain questions, it seems, need to be addressed. The first is this: do we have reliable standard 

4 




7 



measures of reading rate that can be used to compare students’ performance? 

Carver (1989) did make estimates of silent reading rates based on data reported in another 
study. He also acknowledged, however, that there exists a wide variety of rate norms in the 
scholarly literature on reading rate. For example, Gilmore and Gilmore (1968) reported that the 
average fifth-grade reading rate ranges from 108 to 140 words per minute. Durrell (1955) pegged 
the average fifth-grade oral reading rate at 150 words per minute. Stroud and Henderson (1943) 
determined that the average fifth-grade reading rate was 181-185 words per minute. For fifth 
grade students, depending on the study consulted, a reading rate between 108 to 185 words per 
minute could be considered normal and appropriate. Such a wide spread and inconsistency 
between reports make such data near useless. 

In his latest (Allington, 2001) book on What Really Matters for Struggling Readers , Dick 
Allington notes that reading rate plays an important role in students’ general reading 
development. Using data found in Harris and Sipay’s (1990) classic text on reading difficulties 
and developed from earlier research, Allington provides a set of what he terms “adequate” 
reading rate ranges by grade level (see Table 3). These target rates range from 60-90 words per 
minutes for first grade students to 215-245 words per minute for seventh grade students, to 250- 
300 words per minute for twelfth-graders. Allington does caution his readers that reading rate 
data needs to be approached with caution, especially when inferring differences between oral and 
silent reading. The standards provided by Harris and Sipay (1990) and through Allington (2001) 
do not identify if the data was collected in silent or oral reading. Thus, in addition to concerns 
over the lack of agreed upon standards for reading rate, another concern is the lack of specificity 
to the conditions under which the standard rates apply. 



Insert Table 3 About Here 



To determine just how valid these “adequate” rate standards might be, I determined the 
oral reading rates of nearly 100 adult college graduate students on a variety of twelfth-grade 
narrative and expository texts. The material was read orally for one minute. An examiner 
listened to the reading and marked any errors made during the reading. Rate was calculated as 




5 



the number of words read correctly per minute. In my corpus of readers, the average rate was 
166.4 words read correctly per minute. Word recognition accuracy was 99.34%, clearly at an 
independent level as measured by informal reading inventory standards. This mean rate, 166 
words per minute, however, is severely inconsistent with the data reported by Harris and Sipay 
and Allington. Indeed, using the Harris and Sipay/Allington rates for twelfth graders as targets, 
100% of these college graduates read below the minimally adequate reading rate and could 
logically be considered deficient or inefficient readers that by that criteria. 

I attempted to take into account Allington’s caution that older readers tend to read faster 
in a silent mode than orally. I collected several silent readings from some of the same adults 
who read for me orally and found that, on average, oral reading rate was approximately 76% of 
silent reading rate for adult proficient readers on twelfth-grade level materials. Applying this 
information to the oral rate data, the mean silent reading rate for adults should be 214 words per 
minute. Even with this adjustment, the average reading rate of the adult readers is still 
significantly below the Harris and Sipay/Allington minimally adequate reading rates for grades 
12, 9 and 8. It is even slightly below the minimally acceptable 215 words per minute rate that 
would be expected for seventh grade students. 

Concurring with Carver (1989), despite the potential value of reading rate for diagnostic 
and assessment purposes, we currently do not have a good handle on just what are the 
appropriate reading rates one could expect for readers at various grade levels, not to mention 
various times within grade levels. If reading rate is to be a useful tool for identifying and 
assisting students with reading difficulties, we absolutely need some clear and valid rate 
standards by grade level and time during the academic year. 

Hasbrouck and Tindal (1992) have provided us with some preliminary data on reading 
rates based on a large sample of children (see Table 4). However, these rates apply to only four 
grade levels and, because the data was collected in a variety of sites and conditions, we cannot be 
certain of the uniformity of conditions under which the data were collected. 



Insert Table 4 About Here 



The second major question that needs to be faced if we hope to use reading rate 
information to diagnose and help readers with reading difficulties is to develop some conventions 
or guidelines for collecting this data. For example, here are just some of the very pragmatic 
questions that should be addressed in establishing rate norms and in collecting rate data from 
struggling readers: 

• In collecting rate data should the reader read orally or silently? 

• Should the reader be permitted to rehearse the text prior to the rate collection? 

• Should there be a measure of reading comprehension attached to the rate collection? 

• How long should the reader be asked to read — for the entire passage or for a 
predetermined time period? 

• How should rate be calculated — total number of words covered during a reading episode 
or words read correctly during the reading episode? 

• Should words skipped or omitted be counted in the calculation of rate? What about 
words inserted? 

• How should words be counted? Should there be a standard unit of measurement for a 
word (e.g number of letters make a standard word?) 

• How should readers be prompted to read — “in your normal voice” or “as fast as you 
can?” 

• What type of text should be used for determining rate? 

• How should the difficulty of the text be determined? 

• How often should reading rate be determined? 

• If rate standards are standards for various times within the year, what should those time 
periods be? 

• What should be the cutoff rates, the rates at which readers are considered to be processing 
the text in a competent, efficient, and meaningful manner or, conversely, rates associated 
with an inefficient processing or in a manner that serious disrupts the reader’s 
construction of meaning and at which intervention should occur? 

• What is the relationship between silent and oral reading rates at various grade levels? 



Clearly, there are other questions that may be added to this list. And, although they may 
seem rather trivial, they should be addressed. We have lived too long ignoring data that could 
provide valuable clues to the reading of students who are at risk in reading. We are beginning to 
recognize that an efficient processing of text is necessary for proficient and meaningful reading. 
But we can only use the information if we have clear and adequate standards and procedures for 
collecting and interpreting that data. I truly feel that it would be a worthwhile project to firmly 
establish those norms and procedures so that reading scholars and practitioners alike can use and 
understand data that is just to valuable to ignore. 

Finally, I wish to conclude by noting that although reading rate can be a valuable and 
effective tool in the diagnostic and assessment process, it is not the only tool available, nor 
should it be the only assessment and diagnostic tool that a teacher or diagnostician use. 

Moreover, the identification of difficulties in reading rate does not suggest nor should it lead to 
simple-minded exercises or other interventions for building reading rate. Theoretically, rate is a 
measure of the underlying concept of reading fluency. Authentic interventions such as modeling 
fluent reading, providing support while reading, and the use of repeated readings prior to the 
performance of poetry or reader’s theatre have been shown to lead to improved fluency, improved 
rate of reading, and improved overall performance in reading. Although fluency can be assessed 
using reading rate as one measure, reading fluency can and should be taught in authentic and 
engaging ways for students. As fluency improves, reading rate and comprehension will improve 
as well. 



8 




11 



References 



Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers . New York: Addisson, 
Wesley, Longman. 

Carver, R. P. (1989). Silent reading rates in grade equivalents. Journal of Reading Behavior , 21 , 
155-166. 

Durrell, D. D. (1955). Manual of directions, Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty . New York: 
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. 

Gilmore, J. V., & Gilmore, E. C. (1968). Manual of directions, Gilmore Oral Reading Test . 

New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. 

Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students 
in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children , (Spring), 41-44. 

Harris, A., & Sipay, E. R. (1990). How to increase reading ability , 8th edition. New York: 
Longman. 

Laberge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in 
reading. Cognitive Psychology , 6, 293-323. 

Pinnell, G. S, et al. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Data from NAEP’s Integrated 

Reading Performance Record at Grade 4 . Washington: Office of Ecuational Rsearch and 
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. 

RRasinski, T. V. (1990). Investigating measures of reading fluency. Educational Research 
Quarterly , 14 , 37-44. 

Rasinski, T. V. (1999). Exploring a method for estimating independent, instructional, and 
frustration reading rates. Reading Psychology , 20 , 61-69. 

Stroud, J. B., & Henderson, M. (1943). Rate of reading and learning by reading. Journal of 
Educational Psychology , 34, 193-205. 



9 




12 



Table 1 

Correlations Between Teacher Estimation of Overall Second-Grade Student Reading 
and Other Measures of Reading Performance 



Type of Reading Correlation with Teacher Estimation 

Measure of Overall Student Reading Performance* 

Second Grade Word List .78 

(20 words) 

Third Grade Word List (20) .77 

(20 words) 

High Frequency Word List .70 

(15 words) 

WCPM Grade 2 Passage .79 

WCPM Grade 3 Passage .82 

Word Recognition Percentage .49 

on Grade 2 Passage 

Word Recognition Percentage .52 

on Grade 3 Passage 

Names Test (72 words) .76** 



* Teacher estimation made in December; based on four months of daily observation, instruction, 
and other collected data. 

** All correlations significant at the .001 level 



n = 36 



10 




13 



Table 2 



Student 
Assigned Gr 



2 (Nov) 

2 (Nov) 

2 (Feb) 

2 (Feb) 

2 (Jan) 

2 (March) 

2 (April) 

3 (Oct) 

3 (Feb) 

3 (March) 
3 (March) 



udents Referred to the KSU Reading Clinic for Diagnostic Testing * 



Rate on Passage at Target 

Gr Placement(WCPM) Rate** 



Rate on Passage One Gr Level 
Below Placement (WCPM) 









53 




14 








53 




36 






78 




31 




29 


33 


78 


78 


38 


28 




51 




78 




51 




36 




94 




49 


72 




79 




73 




63 


48 


93 


93 


95 


56 




46 




93 




55 



Table 2 (continued) 



Students Referred to the KSU Readme Clinic for Diagnostic Testing * 

Student Rate on Passage at Target Rate on Passage One Gr Level 

Assigned Gr Gr Placement(WCPM) Rate** Below Placement (WCPM) 



4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

6 
6 
6 
9 



(October) 


58 


99 


47 


(Nov) 


71 


99 


81 


(March) 


71 


112 


74 


(March) 


64 


112 


117 


(March) 


24 


112 


33 


(October) 




105 


102 


(October) 




105 


58 (gr 3 text) 


(October) 




Not Avail 


81 


(March) 


120 


Not Avail 


128 


(March) 


83 


Not Avail 


75 


(March) 


70 


Not Avail 


77 



*A11 students referred to the clinic for significant reading difficulties perceived by the teacher 
and/or parent. All students were determined to have an instructional reading level at least one 
grade level below their actual grade placement as a result of the diagnostic process. 

** Target rate is the 50 %ile rate identified by Hasbrouck & Tindal (1992) 



12 




15 



Table 3 



Grade Level 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

12 



Adequate Reading Rates* 
Rate in WPM 
60-90 
85-120 
115-140 
140-170 
170-195 
195-220 
215-245 
235-270 
250-270 
250-300 



* Rates originally reported by Harris and Sipay (1990) and reported most recently in Allington 
( 2001 ) 



Table 4 



Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Rate Norms* 



Grade 


Fall 


Winter 


Spring 


2 


53 


78 


94 


3 


79 


93 


114 


4 


99 


112 


118 


5 


105 


118 


128 



♦Fiftieth percentile rank rates norms are reported. Data originally reported in Hasbrouck & 
Tindal (1992). More complete data can be found in the original article. 

Rate data is reported in Words Correct Per Minute (WCPM) 



14 




17 




U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) 

National Library of Education (NLE) 

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) 

TM032783 

1EPRODUC TION RELEASE 

(Specific Document) 




I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: 



Title: RgnA'S* fri ^(=r- ikXSt KfVtG" fV 

U~T\gS 

Author(s): ^TT ^7 R ^3 \ 

Corporate Source: 






Publication Date: 

/^Pk\L 12 , 2 . 0 © 



II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE: 

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the 
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, 
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if 
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document. 



If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom 
of the page. 




Level 1 



Level 2A 



Level 2B 



i 



i 




□ 



Check here for Level 1 release, permitting 
reproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other 
ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper 
copy. 



Check here for Level 2A release, permitting Check here for Level 2B release, permitting 

reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only 

electronic media for ERIC archival collection 
subscribers only 



Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. 

If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1. 



Sign 

here,-* 



please 

O 



EKLC 



/ hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document 
as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system 
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other sen/ice agencies 
to satisfy information needyyf educatoyfinqesponse to discrete inquiries. 

PffofeSSgg dP spaced 



Signature 




Organization Address: y ' (J tf t T<£~ N/91-U. 

Ke^rr_ Snyrtr 



Kgkst-j on 



Printed Name/Position/Title: 



'jTjK&rhQL y, Qasjtisja PhD, 



A. 



Telephone: 



E-Mail Address: 



* 336 - 






FAX. 



336~&r?2-26ZS 



Date: 









(over) 



III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE): 

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please 
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly 
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more 
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.) 



Publisher/Distributor: 



Address: 



Price: 



IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER: 

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and 
address: 




V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM: 



Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: 

University of Maryland 

ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation 
1129 Shriver Laboratory 
College Park, MD 20742 
Attn: Acquisitions 



However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being 
contributed) to: 



ERIC Processing and Reference Facility 
1100 West Street, 2 nd Floor 
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598 



Telephone: 301-497-4080 
Toll Free: 800-799-3742 
FAX: 301-953-0263 
e-mail: ericfac@ineted.gov 
WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com 



EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)